KevThere's so much on the agenda this week, I'm tempted to vote on-list *before* the meeting, just to speed things up :)
danielhas left
peterhas joined
Ge0rGI'm unfortunately late to the party, still moving and only on mobile for the next hour
Ge0rGAnd the worst thing is, I was only able to work through half of the Dusty drafts in advance 😕
DaveRighty.
Kev'tis time :)
DaveYeah, that.
DaveTwo ticks while I bring up the agenda - do we have a minute-taker?
jonaswcannot take minutes, on mobile
jonasw😾
DaveOK. I'll do it if needs be.
Dave1) Roll Call
danielHere
DaveSamWhited ?
zinidhas joined
SamWhitedI'm here
KevI'm still here.
DaveCool. So just quasi-missing Georg.
Ge0rGhas left
DaveAh. Well, folks, I seem to have a problem, because I've just been called by my daughter who needs a lift.
KevSend your votes on list, hope she's ok.
Ge0rG🤚
DaveSorry about this - can someone else take over for a bit?
KevDone.
Davehas left
DaveKev, She's fine, but she'll get very wet if she tries walking. :-)
Kev3) CFE for XEP-0020: Feature Negotiation
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0020.html
KevEach of these votes has two parts - first whether to Call For Experience before moving to Final, the second to instead deprecate it. This one is for CFE with the intention to later move to Final.
Ge0rGIs 0020 actually used in practice? It's referenced from 0066 and some deprecated ones
KevI'm -1 for 20 CFE.
KevNo, 20's not used in practice anywhere I'm aware, although 155 references it
Ge0rGYes, 0155 was the other one.
Kev155 is also not used :)
Ge0rG-1 then.
daniel-1
SamWhitedI've been thinking about this one a lot, because I've *thought* tabout using 0020 a few times, but never ended up doing it and am not aware of anything else using it. I'm leaning vaguely against moving it on, so -0 I suppose.
KevShould we instead deprecate? I'm +1, although we do need to sort 155 too.
Ge0rG+1 as well
KevSamWhited: If you feel it's useful, you can easily -1 here :)
daniel+1
SamWhitedNo, I'm all for getting rid of cruft that no one uses. It actually occured to me that I've been confused by this one a few times when I thought about using it too, so I feel better about a -1/+1 respectively, but I'll leave my votes alone so that you don't have to change anything.
KevWell, Dave's on-list if Sam wants to change his mind anyway.
Kev5) CFE for XEP-0048: Bookmarks
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0048.html
KevI feel this is premature while the ongoing 49/223 mismatch question isn’t answered. +0
Ge0rGThere's that elephant in the room...
Ge0rGWhat Kev said
SamWhitedThis is just to do a CFE, not to actually move to draft, right? Seems like a good way to get more feedback. +1
Ge0rGSo we need a way forward with that as well
KevSamWhited: Final, not Draft. But correct.
jonaswcfe is for final not draft
SamWhitederr, right, that.
Ge0rGMaybe a cfe with the additional note about 0049 will do the trick
KevI'm not going to fight this :)
Kevdaniel?
danielI'm not really sure.
danielYeah I guess +1
Ge0rGI like the current wording in 0048, it's good enough anyway
KevGe0rG?
Ge0rGGe0rG [17:11]:
> Maybe a cfe with the additional note about 0049 will do the trick
Read that as a +1
KevI'm just going to assume everyone who's +1 for CFE is going to be -1 deprecating going forwards and skip the vote.
Ge0rGKev: yes please
Kev7) CFE for XEP-0059: Result Set Management
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html
Ge0rGWhat about the recent discussion of combining before and after in MAM RSM.
KevThe ongoing before/after discussion in the context of MAM makes this seem premature too, as this might result in significant change (at least in how some people are reading it). -1
SamWhited+1
KevGe0rG: Yes, I think we need to resolve that before we can sensibly think about Finalling this.
daniel+1
Ge0rG-1, what Kev said. Also -1 to depreciation
Kev8) Deprecate XEP-0059: Result Set Management
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html
Kev-1
SamWhited-1
daniel-1
Kev9) CFE for XEP-0066: Out of Band Data
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0066.html
Kev+1
danielI'm not really sure what this is used for exactly...
Ge0rGThis is a good candidate for the "good parts" discussion
danielBut +1
SamWhited+1
Ge0rGdaniel: it's used for inline images in conversations
KevGe0rG: Vote?
Ge0rGIs anyone using the iq part of it?
KevI don't know, I think CFE should be interesting for this one.
danielGe0rG: seems pretty hacky to me
Ge0rGThen +1 for CFE
Kev10) Deprecate XEP-0066: Out of Band Data
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0066.html
All -1
Kev11) CFE for XEP-0072: SOAP Over XMPP
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html
SamWhited-1
Kev+1. It seems sensible to deprecate it, but I think that we should ask if anyone’s using it first.
KevI suspect the outcome of a CFE on this one will make it obvious that it should or shouldn't be deprecated.
danielWhat Kev said. +1
Ge0rG+1
Kev12) Deprecate XEP-0072: SOAP Over XMPP
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html
Kev-1, as above.
SamWhited+1
daniel-1
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rG-1
Kev13) CFE for XEP-0079: Advanced Message Processing
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0079.html
KevI don’t see this advancing to Final unscathed, but +1 for a CFE.
daniel+0
Ge0rG+0
KevSamWhited?
Ge0rGSomebody was recently asking for a way to make time limited messages
SamWhited-0 I suppose; I'm a bit torn on this one, but I don't think it's worth blocking a CFE.
danielNot with this thought Ge0rG
danielTotally unsuited for that job
KevSamWhited: The CFE has been blocked (needs three +1).
SamWhitedOh, huh, I didn't realize that worked differently. Fair enough, I'll +1 for CFE then
Kev-1. I think it needs discussion first (e.g. with a CFE, but doesn't need to be)
jonaswhas left
SamWhited+1 for deprecation also though.
KevAlmost all Council votes work that they need a majority of +1 with no -1. I've not checked the rules for CFE recently, but I'm sure it won't pass on a minority.
Ge0rG-1, agreed with Kev
daniel-1
Kev15) CFE for XEP-0092: Software Version
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0092.html
Kev+1
SamWhited+1
daniel+1
Ge0rG+1
Kev16) Deprecate XEP-0092: Software Version
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0092.html
All -1
Kev17) CFE for XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html
Kev+1
daniel+1
SamWhited+0
Ge0rG+1, sounds useful enough, but no idea who's using it
Kev18) Deprecate XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html
Kev, daniel, Ge0rG -1
KevSamWhited?
SamWhited+1
Kev19) CFE for XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0131.html
Kev+1. I think this is one for deprecation, but I also think we need to discuss, particularly the xep60 dependency, first.
daniel+1
SamWhited-0, wouldn't block.
KevGe0rG?
Ge0rG+1
Kev20) Deprecate XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0131.html
Kev, daniel, Ge0rG -1
KevSamWhited?
SamWhited+0
Kev21) CFE for XEP-0141: Data Forms Layout
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0141.html
Kev+1
Ge0rG+1
daniel+1
Ge0rGI'm for deprecation of 0131, but only after some discussion
SouLhas joined
Ge0rGSorry, mobile lag
Davehas left
SamWhited-0 for CFE, +0 to deprecate.
Kev22) Deprecate XEP-0141: Data Forms Layout
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0141.html
Kev, Ge0rG, daniel -1. Sam +0
Kev23) CFE for XEP-0229: Stream Compression with LZW
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0229.html
Kev+1. Be interesting to see if anyone actually uses this.
SamWhitedI have an implementation and use it, so +1
SamWhitedHipChat also uses it, IIRC.
SamWhited(although I can't remember; I implemented it, and I *think* I used LZW, but it might have been gzip)
Ge0rGCompression is insecure if not applied very cautiously. We should deprecate all of the related xeps
Ge0rGSo I'm -1 / +1
Ge0rGUnless this is a veto, then I'm - 0
KevOur illustrious Chair should check the rules, but I believe (without checking) all the -1s on CFE will veto them.
SamWhitedI generally agree with that, so I am a bit torn, but do want to have a CFE and see what others think.
Ge0rGKev: then log me as -0 please
Dave(Back, but Kev can carry on for consistency)
Kevdaniel: Got a vote on this one?
SamWhitedDave: did you really go anywhere, or did you just want someone else to go through this massive list for you? *squinty eyes*
daniel+1 cfe with an option to later deprecate the compression xep
danielNot just this xep
DaveSamWhited, Can I borrow your fifth amendment for a sec?
KevDave: Are you jumping in to vote now, or On List for the rest too?
SamWhitedDave: any time
Ge0rGhas left
SamWhited> XMPP Extensions Editor shall issue a Call for Experience
KevI'll take that as an On List and move on :)
Kev24) Deprecate XEP-0229: Stream Compression with LZW
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0229.html
Kev-1
SamWhitedMaybe we should have just been voting to deprecate, doesn't look like we need to vote at all on a CFE; oh well.
SamWhited+0
Ge0rG+1
Kevdaniel is -1 presumably as +1 on CFE
KevOk, ta.
SamWhitedNot that it hurts; I guess we can only ask the editor to issue one for any that we've voted on (though if they wanted to do it for others, that's their business)
KevNow onto the 'real' stuff.
Kev25) XEP-0045: Implement stable IDs on Reflection #600
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/600
KevThe feature should probably be named otherwise (e.g. http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#muc_stable_id for consistency with xep45, or a URI for consistency with new stuff), but ok to the intent. +1 after that tweak.
Dave+1 on that. Looks OK.
daniel+1
SamWhited+1
KevGe0rG: Are you ok with my above tweak?
Ge0rGKev: check the XEP, it's full of muc_* features. I've taken consistency with those
KevI don't think they're *features*, I think they're config settings, from memory.
Ge0rGKev: but I'm fine either way
Kevgoes to xep45 quickly.
Ge0rGKev: you might be right
SamWhitedCan you two hash that out after the meeting (unless it's going to change a vote)?
Ge0rGSamWhited: apparently it is, for Kev
KevI suspect either I'll be wrong, in which case I'll +1 anyway, or I'm right and the change isn't contentious.
Kev26) XEP-0153: Clarify encoding of update hash #593
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/593
Kev+1
daniel+1
SamWhited+1 (with the note that "hexidecimal digits" doesn't make much sense, but whatever, people will know what it means)
Dave+1
Ge0rG+1
Kev27) Date of next meeting
SBTSBC?
Dave+1 to that.
SamWhitedoh, huh, nevermind, Wikipedia suggests that "digit" Is used regardless of the radix or number of symbols.
SamWhitedAhem, back to this… +1
danielWfm
KevGood enough :)
Kev28) AOB?
Ge0rG+1W WFM
DaveNone from me - I'll do the Editor's Issue for this and read through to write up the minutes.
SamWhitedCan I request that anything we voted on today where we ended up with no consensus to move forward or deprecate be added to the agenda for next week so we can hash through it in more detail and figure out why and what we want to do?
KevSamWhited: I suggest we do so onlist, before next meeting, personally.
KevBut yes, we should see where the bodies have fallen and work out next steps.
DaveSamWhited, I'll try to highlight those in the minutes, too, so we can thrash on-list as well.
SamWhitedThat would work too, thanks!
KevDave: I'm happy to write minutes if you like, as you weren't here.
KevI think we're done.
Kevhangs the navel
peterGreat work!
KevThanks Peter. I think that might have been the most on the agenda in a Council meeting ever. I'm amazed Dave had the stamina to go through them all.
KevOh, wait.
SamWhited#humblebrag
Ge0rGSo the train has emptied enough for me to open up my laptop *just now*.
KevNowt about bragging, it's about shaming Dave, which is much more fun.
SamWhited#shameondave
KevDave: Shout whether you'd like to minutes or like me to.
DaveKev, No, I'll do the minute in penance.
DaveMinuteS. Definitely more than one of them.
KevThanks.
SamWhitedRequest for people here:
SamWhitedIf you start a thread about one of the things that we didn't get consensus on, please start a separate thread for each one instead of replying to all of them on the minutes email.
SamWhitedIt will be much easier to follow.
KevAdditional request for people:
Can folks have a look at my suggested xep50 text and see if it looks sane and let me know, please? If so I'll turn it into a 'proper' PR, else we can adapt.
Ge0rGWhat Sam said.
Ge0rGAlso we should list all XEP-### tags in the subject of minutes mail covering them, for subject-searchability.
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas left
Ge0rGhas left
danielhas left
jerehas joined
Lancehas joined
danielhas left
Lancehas left
ralphmhas joined
Davehas left
Davehas left
dwdhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
jonaswDave, thank you very much for the editor issue
danielhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
Davehttps://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/601
jonaswDave, thanks! :)
jonaswI’m gonna edit it to make it a tad more useful
DaveI messed up, hang on.
jonaswokay
DaveTa-da.
jonaswawesome
jonaswCFE is not a state, is it?
jonasw(in contrast to proposed)
DaveRight, it's just a Call For Experience to the list.
jonaswright
jonaswgonna make a template thing for that nevertheless
DaveWhich is interesting, because the Editor can do it at any time as long as certain conditions are met.
SouLhas joined
jerehas joined
ralphmhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
jonaswDave (et al.), shall we make the CFE period longer than 14d this time because they are so many at once?
jonaswif so, how long?
ZashNot on council, but that's probably wise. Or sending them in smaller weekly batches.
jonaswI’m fine with both
jonaswha, I’m just gonna do that batched thing. it’s an editor task anyways.
SamWhitedI'd just do 14 days; we can always extend it later if needed.
ZashSeems likely that they'd drown in each others noise if done all at once
SamWhitedEither way; batching seems reasonable and it's up to the editor.
XMPP Council - 2018-03-07